So, I think I need to leave my gaming group

[Drachasor]

So my gaming group has been having a major problem making decisions in-game. Last Thursday it came to a head when we spent most of the session doing nothing and one of the other players said they were done unless things changed (and that we shouldn't play that campaign - Rise of the Runelords) anymore.

Anyhow, I think I want something from the game that not only other people don't want, but actively dislike. I like discussing how to deal with an ethically complicated situation, valuing mercy even for enemies, and discussing how best to handle all that in an actual in-game situation. That's not all I like, but it is one of the big draws of RPGs for me -- one of the big problems with CRPGs (though I like them), is that they often don't let you handle ethical issues with nuance.

My group, whom I've been part of for about 10 years now (wow, time sure flies) is different. They don't want a "debate society" (which covers any prolonged conversation in-game about how to handle problems. They don't want to consider that the goblin prisoner's life has value because it is a living, thinking thing. They have no problem promising to spare its life if it gives us info, and then killing it out of hand. These are Good characters mind you, one of them a cleric of a god that believes pretty much everyone can be redeemed. They think it is bizarre that I have any issues with that.

They also aren't the type to allow anyone that might betray them to live. They are generally unwilling to trust any NPC, etc, etc. They are quick to use violence to solve all problems.

I don't have a problem with fighting bad guys or killing them. I don't have a problem with using violence. But it seems now that my desire to look at issues in an ethically complex manner that is not black and white just because a person tried to kill us or is a goblin or whatever is causing a conflict in the group.

They aren't fans of inter-party conflict, you see (I am not either). They want everyone to have fun. So I think my presence and desires have made it so they have trouble deciding to do anything. Games get bogged down because people try to not offend my play desires so that everyone is happy and we waste a lot of time doing nothing (because they don't seem to find prolonged investigation, shadowing an enemy, or the like very interesting and quickly give up).

In my old group, in college, my desires weren't a problem. We'd have fun discussing how to ethically handle something. We might not agree on HOW to handle it, but we were happy to agree that there was an ethical complex issue to discuss. We'd go from fights to discussions to whatever without any problems.

I don't think it helps that my current group doesn't talk in character. One person in particular HATES it. Worse, they always refer to other characters by the player's name. I've tried encouraging in-character talk. I've tried to lead by example by using character names. No progress. It makes it very hard to get in character.

It doesn't help that when I try to do anything mechanically interesting to occupy my attention, that tends to get shot down. Non-cheesy Kobold Sorcerer-Paladin? Not allowed (I don't get past wanting to play a Kobold at all). Star Wars SAGA "Iron Man" using armor and wealth alongside Jedi (which everyone usually does)...Nope, one of the DMs literally said only bad guys can have cool armor in Star Wars. Now, it probably doesn't help that I typically know the system better than anyone else, and I enjoy flexible characters and flexing that flexibility. Heck, even my Warlock is considered overpowered (and it was just a generic 3.5 Warlock, no PrCs, special feats, or anything) -- and the fact he was consistently out-damaged in combat by everyone doesn't matter (not that he didn't hold his own, mind you). So generally anything I ask about playing, even if it cuts the power level down like a Mystic Theurge or whatever, the answer is generally "no."

So basically...I can't experiment with interesting builds, have trouble roleplaying, and can't enjoy dealing with complex ethical issues. And I think what I'd like is making the game less fun for everyone else.

And yeah, we've tried talking about this stuff. A lot. Goblins having basic rights as sentient beings is declared ridiculous. Sparing humans that have tried to kill us is madness. Nothing ethically complex there they say (though they generally insist ethically complex stuff is fine...though they don't want to have long discussions at the table about it). No traction on interesting builds or little tools that would help me RP better (and generally people declare that my concern about ethics is "unrealistic"). And when I've tried to propose and brainstorm ideas so that we can make decisions quicker and easier....no traction there. Rotating party leader? No! Voting on what we do next so it gets resolved more quickly? No. Forgoing the inherent "veto rights" we've generally allowed everyone...only me and one other person in our group are willing to do that. And they have no ideas except stop the campaign and start another one. I don't think we've had any campaign last much more than 6 months since I joined.

We do generally argue about some other stuff like when we should rest or not -- I try to avoid the "5 minute workday" but they are always terribly afraid we'll TPK.

Things were particularly bad this last campaign. Probably since RotR gets a lot less directed once you hit the city. I did successfully make them feel my wizard was not OP by focusing on buffing and support though. But that was about it as far as successes went. Anyhow, I think my desires and what I like are just making decision-making much harder on the group and making everyone have less fun. So I think I should bow out for a time at least and see if things work better for them. And honestly, I'm a bit frustrated too.

I guess I'm just wondering if anyone has any thoughts or advice on this. I figured I should double-check my reasoning before I left the group.

[BWR]

Based on what you say, it sounds like irreconcilable differences. If you none of you are willing to play the game the other side's way, you'll have to leave and find a group that does things your way.
It sucks, but not as much as constantly feeling frustrated that the game isn't not doing what you want it to do.

Personally, I've been on both sides of the group. Lately we've played two singe-race campaigns. In the first case, all the traditionally evil humanoid races were literally evil and trying to wipe us out, so most of us decided that playing xenophobic racists was an appropriate response. However there is one player who cannot play this at all, and it really ruins the immersion and group cohesion when one person just cannot get behind some basic assumptions about how the group and the world works. He also insisted on playing a human instead of an elf (in an all-elf campaign) because they are better mechanically, and the DM has a hard time saying 'no' at character creation. It just ruined the atmosphere and general point of the game, but this player didn't really care so long as he could play his mechanically superior character. He also likes to optimize, and while he is generally pretty good at self-nerfing his builds to levels only slightly better than the rest of us, he likes to work with lots weird classes and and prestige classes that don't really fit in all settings so they break immersion in that way. In the second case the DM learned his lesson about hard limits on mechanics (all dwarves, period. limited set of classes you can choose), but this player still cannot play a racist to save his life, which kind of ruins the fun when most of the rest of us want to kill all these damn humanoids which have taken over our ancient dwarven lands.
I've also played characters that are the only ones who think that mercy towards enemies and keeping your word is a good thing, does not approve of breaking into and looting tombs, does not approve of underhanded actions, and been annoyed when no one else can ever think in those terms, but keep playing basically the same character over and over again (they got better).

The point isn't that the rest of us always play racists; we don't (it's bascially only been these two times in 20+ years of gaming). It's not that most of us are racists; we aren't. It's just that it's fun to let yoursefl go and screw boring ethics discussions and just focus on this particular type of play, and someone who can't go along with this even a little bit is ruining everyone else's fun. It sounds like your group is always like this, however, and can't try something different even once.

[Citizen Nij]

Sounds like they and you are looking for different things in your gaming.

You want to develop a character and play inside a complex universe, entirely understandable as a complex person with creativity yourself, but also discuss the meta-game issues around sparing non-human creatures because you sympathise with their attack on a village whose people hunted them like wild dogs, because hey, you complex person!

But trying to work outside generic game mythology means having to both question that established mythology and also construct a new one. For some people, that's a bit more effort than they're willing to make, for what is effectively just a social pastime for them: "this is how we've always done it, everybody knows how to do it this way, and changing it means less time for actually playing it, so stick to status quo, please".

I think you could try playing with other groups for a while, see if anybody runs a game more closely along the lines you enjoy it, while continuing the adventures you're already involved in with your current group. The other groups may serve as a good pressure valve, so to speak, that lets you run through the more complicated play and permits the discussions, without requiring that you give up the obviously thus-far-enjoyable group you're already established in.

Could be you end up drifting from one to the other over time naturally, or maybe you'll get a good balance between them, or you'll figure out how to interweave your current group's consensus with the individual things you want to get out of it. But if you feel uncomfortable in that group, and the enjoyment factor isn't there for everybody, there's no reason to inflict it upon yourself, especially if others are available that better suit your needs.

[ngilop]

If you are not having fun and the rest of the people are not having fun, then I think it would be for the best
for everybody included.

I had to leave a game once becuase after uhmm 4-ish months i just got tired of ' we are never going to lose'
I actually want a challenge and supermanning through EVERYTHING just got old for me fast.

I can see both sides of your party there about the ethicla cornumdrums
You go ' isX evil or good' then using the only thing you know 'real life' you weigh a decision on whether an
action in D&D is 'good' or 'evil' based upon you experiences, ethiics, and own moral compass you have in real life.
they see it as ' we are D&D heroes and that X attacked us. kill it and loot the body, oh that dude right there
not really evil was just forced to do Y or the BBEG will kill his sister so we beat him up to teach a lesson but let him live'

But if you have had 20 (or more) campaigns over 10 years because the game bogs down due to the radically different
playstyles, then you are really doing a diservice to yourself, and to them. Letting go is always hard
but sometimes it is the right thing to do. if you need a should to cry on and a hug here ya go :)

[Krazzman]

So to let me sum it up (seeing if I got the problem):

You are gaming for 10 years, regularly with a group of people that think the Alignment good means "Murder Hobo". People that want a more Beer and Brezeln Game.
Characterideas/builds that were non-standard (for them) are deemed either OP or outright banned. Also no real Roleplay just Hack'n'Slash.

Just out of interest (as you mentioned Saga) how fast did they accumulate Dark Side points? Why doesn't their alignment shift to something more fitting?
What is the DM's point on this or do you have rotating DM's?
Why hasn't there been any In-Party conflict in basically the first session? I would think your characters would get big problems with it, or wouldn't they?

I get the "Shoot first, ask Questions later" mentality as it is a reasonable thing that could develop as an adventurer. But as you said maybe you just want other things out of it. IF you can really find another game or another group then maybe this will work. They will have their more railroady games and you will have a group that is more in-character.

That is the thing (which makes this hobby the most interesting for me), the diversity in what ways you can play. Rules light, just hack'n'slash, intrigue, character in-depth development and so on.

I would say: talk with your group again. Adress your problems and tell them that you plan to go as your playstyle conflicts with theirs, then see what reaction you get and act accordingly.

Good luck.

[Gamgee]

Sounds like your looking for something different.

[Kaun]

Seeing as how you have been playing with them for 10 years i'm guessing you like the people you play with? You can always play with another group as well as your current group, time permitting.

[Rhynn]

Why do something you don't enjoy instead of doing something you do enjoy? (Unless it pays better.)

Go, be free!

[veti]

What I don't get is, how you've been playing with this group for ten years, before realising that their play style is not compatible with what you want?

Have they changed? Or have you? Be honest.

If you've changed (which seems the likeliest option, requires the least variables in the equation), then can you identify why you've changed, and expose your fellow players to some of the same influences?

How easy would it be to find another group? If you're at, or near, college or a similar environment, then it's easy. But out in the Working World, it gets tougher. Have you tried?

Just a few things to think about.

[Drachasor]

Thank you all for your responses. I am still thinking this over.

Here's some additional detail that should address some of the questions and clarify the situation somewhat.

My group tries to make everyone happy. So we tried to avoid intra-party fighting. So where logically from a character perspective things might boil over into violence or extreme action, we tone it done so we can keep playing together. But this also often leads to extended arguments (which tend to be arguments far, far more than debates) when a contentious issue comes up. Personally, I wouldn't mind debating and discussing an issue (even in occasional excessive detail), but no one else finds that intellectually stimulating.

This also affects our ability to make plans. I think this has actually gotten worse over the years. One of us has a kid and another just had open heart surgery in the last 5 months. I suspect this has made them want to blow off more steam in gaming and think about things less. So while we'd have more cooperative planning in the past, now it feels like most of the burden falls on my shoulders. They generally don't seem very interested in taking half an hour to an hour to come up with a plan -- that's a waste of time (in their view, it seems). Same with gathering intel (which was a problem in the open-ended nature of the Magnimar section of Rise of the Runelords). For instance, one of them trailed a guy for like 8 hours in-game and then just gave up and stopped -- when you'd think trailing a public official involved in bad stuff would probably take a bit longer to reveal information. More than before, it seems like if something doesn't provide more immediate rewards, they get bored.

Regarding the ethics bit, part of the problem is that they really identify with the "take no prisoners", "monster races are always non-persons", "better to kill a prisoner than take chances" philosophy. So when I talk about how I'd like more moral depth and struggling with ethically complex situations in the game, they take that as an insult -- like I am saying they are not ethical. Because as players they really don't see any ethical issues in stuff that makes me cringe (I admittedly identify with more complex ethical stuff too).

For instance, in Rise of the Runelords, goblins attack the village of Sandpoint. We tracked them to their base. We attacked them, a goblin druid comes up and defends them, then surrendered to us after he was beaten. I had to use a spell to stop one of them from killing it after the surrender (probably one of the most direct acts against another player I've ever done, pretty rare). One of the other players promised we'd spare its life if it gave us information. It tells us it doesn't like the guy in charge, doesn't like who they are working with, didn't take part in the attack, and would like to get rid of the current leader of the goblins. Seems sincere (given sense motive checks). In the middle of it giving information (literally mid-sentence) one of the players is frustrated and views this as a derailment and stabs it in the back. A cleric of a god of forgiveness and redemption (even of evil gods). Besides the DM, I am the only person that has any kind of problem with that. Everyone else sees it as a black and white issue without any kind of moral ambiguity and killing it was the right thing. Can't trust it (no matter what rolls we get). It's a goblin so promises don't count. Etc, etc.

That's how stuff works out in game. We also had a character who was playing a cop in a Dresden game pull his gun on some Hospital Security guards because they wouldn't let him through (and they were just normal hospital staff). And he was planning to start shooting -- we had to talk him out of it since it was completely insane. But getting violent is how they often deal with in-game frustration, even if it doesn't make sense for a good cop to start shooting innocents who are just doing their job. And again, most of the people at the table don't see how it is all that unreasonable (especially if a solution to get what we won't isn't indicated by the DM right away).

Out of game, when I talk to them, OF COURSE they are interested in ethically tough situations. Well, as long as I accept they can solve them by killing something on occasion. Well, in the abstract that's not entirely unreasonable, sometimes you have to take a life. In practice, that seems to have meant "we're going to kill it, and that's a meaningful and deep way to handle an ethical challenge." Other parts of the conversation have tended to get bogged down in nitty gritty details of particular situations as they justify whatever happened in game. I've tried a few times to ask some hypothetical questions, but that doesn't seem to go well.

For instance, to try to figure out where they stand on something, I might give a thought experiment about how'd they handle a goblin they took captive in a town 30 feet away from the jail. I seem to get a serious answer, but I am not longer sure. Slowly I've realized from other conversations on non-gaming matters that they don't view simplified scenarios as serious, and instead I'm just being ridiculous. I have a strong science and math background, so that's just how I think and examine situations. Similarly, if they say "X is always true" and I give a clear counter-example (usually something a bit extreme, since that's easiest), then I'm ridiculous. But that's kind of what you have to do since you can't stay in a gray area when you are doing that (it just leads to an argument). Overall, I think part of the problem is I'm trying to figure out facts about where they stand and ponder out situations, then they just view it as me being argumentative and must be right. Well, I do enjoy a good debate and discussion, but I have and am perfectly willing to change my views whenever I am wrong.

Well, that kind of got off on a tangent. I'm probably letting off some steam since they are sometimes frustrating to me.

Anyhow, we are all friends and see movies together and do other activities. We have also taken some breaks from gaming over the past 10 years. And a good portion of the campaigns ended because the DM got too busy or ran out of steam rather than our dysfunction causing a breakdown. So between breaks, them wanting to appear reasonable on the issue (and sincerely believing they are), and non-dysfunction campaign endings, this hasn't been readily apparent. Overall I think we've had maybe 10 or so campaigns in the last 10 years. A lot of them didn't last longer than 6 months. I don't think any of them lasted for 2 years.

To be clear, I don't have a problem with them enjoying what they enjoy. I don't think there's a "wrong" way to play. But it does seem like things are pretty incompatible. That said, things have worked better when the DM made sure we only ever encountered faceless mooks and black and white situations. We do have a bit of a leadership problem even so, but usually that hasn't been too bad (just RoRL seem to make everything worse). Though, I am rather tired of all of our campaigns fizzing out so quickly -- Several games where I played a Gish and we never got past 6th level or so didn't help.

Anyhow, I am on the fence on whether I should remove myself for at least a time or see what the next campaign is likely to be. I am not sure how useful talking to them will be since we've done it a lot in the past. Besides my brother I just don't think they really understand where I am coming from (partly because they seem to imply I am just a powergamer who never roleplays). It's frustrating. Obviously it has been more fun than not overall...but more and more it seems like I making the situation worse.

Addendum: Regarding Star Wars SAGA, 9/10 we fought Droids* and rarely Dark Jedi. And they usually are on board with trying to limit civilian deaths. It's just if a Civilian has info and is being difficult, then they can sometimes get unpleasant (this seems to be related to how frustrated they are). But with Mind Trick that's pretty avoidable. So largely they sidestepped any issues since they like Star Wars even if they think some of the setting is "stupid."

*And not droids from the Clone Wars cartoon, but faceless and personality-less droids.

[HighWater]

Oh wow, this is a nasty one. Let me put this up front: I like your playstyle better. I am going to argue from what I think is their perspective though. So I might come off as pretty hostile.

It seems to me that the problem comes down to a quite significant divergence in the expectations and desires for complications. Not just complexity, but complications.

This explains why nobody likes your "complex builds", with the argument perhaps being something like: 'They're not "pure" DnD, so why do you play them? Probably because they are stronger, so banned! Why do you want to make things more complicated?.... Well, now that you've been shut down with non-standard builds, you will probably instead go overboard with a standard build so...' *suspicious glaring*
Once you have the label of powergamer, justified or not, it is difficult to get rid off.

Interestingly enough, the ingame issues don't immediatly start with you, they start with the DM:
-"Argh, the DM is giving us one of those non-cooperative NPC's again! Why can't everything just go smoothly and in a straightforward matter? Why must everything be so complicated? You know what, I don't have time for this, I only get like X hours of free time per week and I am NOT spending them arguing with an imaginary person. Here, let me whip out an intimidate and if that doesn't help, let's just go knife someone, at least that's a guaranteed success."
- "C'mon, goblins are for killing! I spend my entire working week AND parenting time being responsible and thoughtful. I just want to smash some stuff and not feel guilty. Goblins with personalities, motivations and justification? Please don't add these complications! I don't WANT to know I might be knifing someone who is mostly innocent, who has dreams, who has a valid reason to behave so "evil"... I don't want there to be a way for me to do things wrong. Especially not if they take extra time."
- "Oh god, you honestly want me to sneak around your imaginary city, "shadowing" some dude and spelling out every action I take in an environment I am really not familiar with? This is waaaayyy too much blah blah and if I screw up, it's gonna lead to complications AND a lot of wasted time."

And then there you are. The DM's champion, probably without either of you realising. You say:
"Wait! Things can't be that simple! Surely not all goblins should have to die?" "Let's go and explore the city with no guarantee for success!"
and worst of all, you lecture:
"You can't go around killing surrendered and talkative goblins, think of the Ethics man! WHY ARE YOU PLAYING THE GAME WRONG!" "Oh god, why did you try to shoot a security guard in the face? You're a cop, dude! WHY ARE YOU PLAYING THE GAME WRONG!" "Oh geesh, as soon as the plot becomes slightly less obvious, you guys lose track and give up. That's not perseverence! The game is supposed to be hard! What? NO, you can't go stab that person! WHY ARE YOU PLAYING THE GAME WRONG!?"

Now I'm not saying you actually lecture. But from the above I can certainly understand that they feel that way. They don't want to play the game wrong. A game with ethical complications and freeform exploration is something that can be played wrong very easily (at least in their mindset). It also takes up way more time, limiting the pay-out value per session. They don't like it when the DM puts them in that situation. It is worse when there's someone at the table, someone they otherwise like, who is pedantic about them approaching the game in an "immature" fashion. They can't do anything right! They probably feel that they can't do anything at all...

The short version:
- They want a very simple game. Straightforward quests, straightforward enemies, some nice clear paths to follow, perhaps an unavoidable DM plottwist, slay the dragon, save the princess, no need to think!
- You and the DM want a game with more depth. Things are not always as they seem, multiple ways to fulfill a goal, sometimes the path just disappears and you need to figure it out on your own, you have to think!
The DM gives them these situations, they don't like it, but from what you're saying he doesn't really go against them when they handle it hack&slash style. Although he feeds them his playstyle, he doesn't crack down when they ignore his subtleties and instead smash everything.
That cannot be said of you. You want a more complicated game. You want them to consider what they do and what impact it would have in a real world. This is not how they want to play and as you say, you actually argue about this. Perhaps they've been conditioned to avoid doing anything, because most of the stuff they want to do doesn't pass your judgment.

After 10 years, it seems their patience for games with complications has worn thin. Likewise, your patience for their murderhobo-style has run out. They will probably never convert to your ways, this is not the DnD they want to play. You can instead embrace their style and experience the joy of relinquishing all responsibility and/or you can go find a group that has more eye for nuance. Be up front about it though. Just tell them that you feel you're not playing the same game and that it's getting in the way of everyone's fun. Either tell them that you'll stop insisting on moral complications (and will embrace their style), or tell them that it's been fun, but that all good things must come to an end... Do remember that many friendships fade out when the number of contact hours is reduced.

I hope that was helpful.

[Talakeal]

Star Wars SAGA "Iron Man" using armor and wealth alongside Jedi (which everyone usually does)...Nope, one of the DMs literally said only bad guys can have cool armor in Star Wars.

That's a special sort of crazy. I have seen my share of power tripping DMs, hell even been one a few times I am ashamed to say, but that really takes the cake.

I would wait until they are in a calm situation and really talk it over with them, but if this is consistent behavior I would look for a new group. I personally wouldn't leave without an alternative (I put up with a quite a lot, as anyone who has followed my threads will know), but I wouldn't be surprised if you did.

[Jornophelanthas]

I have a suggestion that could be a bit out of left field, and might not be suitable for your situation after all. But it may be a fun thing to try, even if it is highly specific.

---

If being Actually Good causes issues, try being the opposite: Actually Evil.

Retire your current character, and create a new one. This new character would be of an insidiously evil alignment (for example, a fanatical follower of an evil god), and be much, much more jaded than the other player characters. He/she would actually encourage all murder-hobo activities perpetrated by the party. Whenever one of other players kills a helpless enemy, or attacks a hapless guard, or performs a random act of violence that causes some unseen NPC suffering, praise them for it. Be enthusiastic, cheer them on, congratulate them afterwards and celebrate their actions in the tavern afterwards (and buy them a few rounds).
You could consider joining in on the senseless acts of violence and murder by the other characters (though probably never more wicked than they themselves have acted so far), but perhaps you could also make a point of not participating yourself, and instead always urging them on from the sidelines.

Then, see how long it takes for the other players to realize that your character is being a bad influence on their characters. If they do at all.

(But in the meantime, everyone is having fun. However, you should take pains not to exaggerate it too much, as that could be taken by them as passive-aggressive behaviour. And make sure never to sound sarcastic when egging them on to do brutal things.)

---

The out-of-game solution that this in-game solution hides is the following:
- You change your behaviour at the table drastically, and hopefully in a way that does not frustrate your fellow players.
- You have a private engagement with moral complexity that the other players may become a part of if they want to. But they have to (choose to) notice the issue first.
- The dysfunctional interactions between your character and the other characters are removed by resetting the entire in-game relationships.

[NichG]

I'd say you've had the courage to recognize when a long-standing routine is fundamentally unsatisfying and to try to do something about that even though it means breaking out of a habit. Given that that sort of resolve comes and goes you should take advantage of it now while you have it to make a change and find a new group. Yes you've been with these guys for 10 years, but its easy to get into a mindset of 'I'll keep trying' because changing something like that can be very scary.

Your playstyles are highly incompatible. There may be compromises that can be reached, but odds are its just going to drag things out since you've already tried a number of reasonable things with no traction. This is a clear example of when its good to find another groups, and you seem to have the maturity to do it without drama or damaging long-term friendships over it.

[Airk]

I think Highwater probably has the right read on this situation -at least, as far as the moral complexity goes. You might do well to talk to the GM about it.

Jornophelanthas idea is...interesting. I'm not sure it is WISE, but I think it is interesting.

Overall, the options appear to be:

A) Go evil, as described above. May not be a good idea. They may feel you are making fun of them, even if you do it with a flawlessly straight face.
B) Work the GM to present a game that won't raise these issues. (No one sympathizes with the undead.)
C) Leave.

I don't know that you necessarily have to go to C before trying at least one of A and B.

[NichG]

I think Highwater probably has the right read on this situation -at least, as far as the moral complexity goes. You might do well to talk to the GM about it.

Jornophelanthas idea is...interesting. I'm not sure it is WISE, but I think it is interesting.

Overall, the options appear to be:

A) Go evil, as described above. May not be a good idea. They may feel you are making fun of them, even if you do it with a flawlessly straight face.
B) Work the GM to present a game that won't raise these issues. (No one sympathizes with the undead.)
C) Leave.

I don't know that you necessarily have to go to C before trying at least one of A and B.

Neither A or B actually give the OP a chance to play the sort of game they enjoy though, its just appeasing the rest of the group.

[Airk]

Neither A or B actually give the OP a chance to play the sort of game they enjoy though, its just appeasing the rest of the group.

I'm not sure; I suppose that's true, but a lot of the vibe I got from the OP was less "I require complicated moral situations in my games" so much "Pelor's toenails! We keep running into complicated moral situations and my group handles them like a bunch of adrenally challenged 12 year olds."

And who knows. Spotlighting the situation with A might eventually change things. And at least with B you're removing the frustration of watching these clowns fail to deal with complex situations.

[veti]

From your detailed account: my suggestion would be to take a break from roleplaying, a change of pace for a while - maybe a couple of months - and let everyone cool down. Once you've done that, then you, and the DM, and the other players all sit down together and talk about what you want out of the next campaign.

In the meantime, to keep everyone together, I recommend: Munchkin. It's the perfect game for roleplayers who don't want to roleplay any more, just get together and rules-lawyer and laugh with (and at) each other.

[The Oni]

I second the "Evil character" idea.

Take it from me; I tried to roll a Lawful Good character in Pathfinder Society (think Murderhobos, Incorporated). The last game I played, I took to carrying a k.o.'d captive around on my back because it was the only way I could ensure she wouldn't get her throat slit 'till we found some place to drop her (it works because PVP is illegal). The party sorcerer responded with Magic Missile, and what with it being unfailingly accurate...yeah. In this kind of game, you just *can't* play that way.

But, it *can* be fun to be a murderous psychopath - it's just annoying when murderous psychopaths write "Lawful Good" on their character sheets. So play evil. Be a nasty, goblin-stabbing baby-kicking sonovabeech, and out-murder your murder-hobo buddies. Or...play with someone else, who appreciates character nuance and shades of grey in the world.

[Talakeal]

I have been in a murder hobo group a couple of times and been stuck in the Miko role. Hated by everyone for spoiling there fun.

I haven't, however, found a good alternative. Making an evil character doesn't work, because they don't think of themselves as evil. In their minds they are still the good guys, just more efficient / free spirited than you. If you actually try and be evil you will, in my experience, cross some unspoken line and find yourself in a situation where the positions are reversed.

I once had a game where we were expected to slaughter humanoids mercilessly for no reason. I kept having problems with this, so I rerolled an evil character, but then I got into the problem of treating "good guys" as victims, I would kill and rob from humans just as readily as goblins, which pissed off the DM and other players. So I changed my character again into a fanatical racist who believed that only humans had a right to exist, which worked all well and good until we had a mission where we were helping the elves. Playing a character with beliefs drastically different from your own is a really tough tightrope to walk, especially when everyone else in the group is just playing what comes naturally to them and doesn't have to put any thought into it.

[Jornophelanthas]

Take it from me; I tried to roll a Lawful Good character in Pathfinder Society (think Murderhobos, Incorporated). The last game I played, I took to carrying a k.o.'d captive around on my back because it was the only way I could ensure she wouldn't get her throat slit 'till we found some place to drop her (it works because PVP is illegal). The party sorcerer responded with Magic Missile, and what with it being unfailingly accurate...yeah. In this kind of game, you just *can't* play that way.

There is still the possibility to respond to that using "murderhobo talk": "Hey, you broke my captive! That goblin was mine, and you killed it. How would you like it if I poked a leak in the flask with your healing potion while you weren't looking?"

Making an evil character doesn't work, because they don't think of themselves as evil. In their minds they are still the good guys, just more efficient / free spirited than you. If you actually try and be evil you will, in my experience, cross some unspoken line and find yourself in a situation where the positions are reversed.

But, it *can* be fun to be a murderous psychopath - it's just annoying when murderous psychopaths write "Lawful Good" on their character sheets. So play evil. Be a nasty, goblin-stabbing baby-kicking sonovabeech, and out-murder your murder-hobo buddies. Or...play with someone else, who appreciates character nuance and shades of grey in the world.

My suggestion to play an evil character was not so much to out-evil the rest of the party by performing utter acts of depravity, but rather to encourage the rest of the party to commit worse and worse acts of evil, and to praise them for it. More like an extremely bad influence than a murderous psychopath. In other words, if anyone is crossing the line, it would be the player who is being "stimulated" by the evil character, rather than the evil character him/herself.
This requires subtlety, of course. No need to let the other players know what the evil character's deal is (or that he/she even has one). Let them find that out on their own, if they choose not to ignore it. And if they do ignore it, they will have gained a convivial drinking buddy who toasts them for all the wrong reasons.

I should stress again, though, to not take this advice blindly. Only consider it if such a characte and playstyle would mix well with both your own playstyle, the playstyle of the group, and the DM's playstyle.

[ElenionAncalima]

The problem I see with the evil suggestion is that it is just another way of forcing morality and roleplaying onto the party...which is clearly not what they want. Its kind of like saying "Look at these actions I am taking! Now can you see how they are morally wrong?" From what it sounds like these players want to think about themselves as the the good guys and totally avoid all these ethical questions.

OP, I do sympathize...my style of play if far more in line with yours. Also, if the cleric (Sarenrae, I am assuming?) is continually acting like that they probably should have lost their powers by now (I guess that Sarenrae forgiveness extends to her clerics). However, you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink. If that type of game isn't fun for them, you are not going to be able to convince them to change the way they play.

Its a tough situation, but here are some possible options:
-Have you really sat down and talked with your gaming group? I don't mean made offhand complaints and suggestions during the game...but really have a conversation about everyone's playstyle. It may be a longshot, but perhaps there is compromise that can be made.
-Are there any other gaming groups in the area? These people are clearly your friends and by all means don't cut them out of your life...but perhaps gaming with them isn't working out. Alternatively, if you can fit two games into your life, playing murderhobo with them might not feel so bad when you have another gaming outlet to play a more serious game.
-Are you still in touch with your college gaming friends? Perhaps are still interested in playing. Tools like Roll20 and Skype can do a lot to bridge the distance.

[Drachasor]

Once again, thank you for all the replies and conversation. It has helped me carefully consider the situation.

I think Highwater probably has the right read on this situation -at least, as far as the moral complexity goes. You might do well to talk to the GM about it.

An option when my brother is the DM. Doesn't look like he'll be the next DM though, instead it is one of them people that doesn't understand why I am seeing any ethical issues in these situations.

A) Go evil, as described above. May not be a good idea. They may feel you are making fun of them, even if you do it with a flawlessly straight face.
B) Work the GM to present a game that won't raise these issues. (No one sympathizes with the undead.)
C) Leave.

We've tried some B before and it worked alright, but it worked best when my brother was the DM. It still didn't work perfectly. See, they feel like it places unfair limits on the situations we can encounter. They don't see why they can't have a goblin beg for its life or even potentially a human and then kill it. What's wrong with that and why am I stopping that sort of thing from happening? Though, there's a fair amount of oddity going on. One of the players has described all enemies we face as generic villains holding a Villain Ball, but he tends to ignore any depth given to villains and deny it when it is pointed out.

The biggest problem I have with (A) is that I don't think I'd enjoy it. While playing a bit of a villain can be fun as the DM, I don't think I could really stomach it as a player.

Also...

I have been in a murder hobo group a couple of times and been stuck in the Miko role. Hated by everyone for spoiling there fun.

I haven't, however, found a good alternative. Making an evil character doesn't work, because they don't think of themselves as evil. In their minds they are still the good guys, just more efficient / free spirited than you. If you actually try and be evil you will, in my experience, cross some unspoken line and find yourself in a situation where the positions are reversed.

I once had a game where we were expected to slaughter humanoids mercilessly for no reason. I kept having problems with this, so I rerolled an evil character, but then I got into the problem of treating "good guys" as victims, I would kill and rob from humans just as readily as goblins, which pissed off the DM and other players. So I changed my character again into a fanatical racist who believed that only humans had a right to exist, which worked all well and good until we had a mission where we were helping the elves. Playing a character with beliefs drastically different from your own is a really tough tightrope to walk, especially when everyone else in the group is just playing what comes naturally to them and doesn't have to put any thought into it.

This describes the situation pretty well. No matter what they do they consider themselves the good guys. If they get angry and want to kill someone, then clearly it is that person's fault. It's a bit of protagonist centered morality, but there are certainly some loose rules on behavior. It would be pretty easy to play a Chaotic Evil (in D&D terms) character that fit in with the party (I don't think Lawful Evil could manage). Basically play a "people on the Party's/My side are ok, anyone else is fair game" where torture for information or killing if convenient is ok -- and if an NPC is a jerk to me, then killing him is probably ok (as long as it doesn't derail the game because you did it in public). But they don't see that as Evil at all. Not in the game nor, as best I can tell, out of the game.

As I see it, best case they don't even notice he's evil...ever. Worst case, they feel like I am making fun of them or very purposefully being annoying or a jerk.

And worst of all, I wouldn't enjoy it.

I'm not sure; I suppose that's true, but a lot of the vibe I got from the OP was less "I require complicated moral situations in my games" so much "Pelor's toenails! We keep running into complicated moral situations and my group handles them like a bunch of adrenally challenged 12 year olds."

Well, don't notice or acknowledge there's anything complex about the situation. Which is probably why when I object it comes across as lecturing. Because if someone doesn't see something as having any ethical heft, then trying to point out why is going to come across as something like a lecture. Especially when they don't get it out of a character either. I mean, they will SOMETIMES respond if the DM pretty explicitly indicates a situation is worth handling with more care...outside of that it is unlikely.

The other part of the problem is that a lot of the other things I'd find interesting or fun gets denied as an option.

From your detailed account: my suggestion would be to take a break from roleplaying, a change of pace for a while - maybe a couple of months - and let everyone cool down. Once you've done that, then you, and the DM, and the other players all sit down together and talk about what you want out of the next campaign.

In the meantime, to keep everyone together, I recommend: Munchkin. It's the perfect game for roleplayers who don't want to roleplay any more, just get together and rules-lawyer and laugh with (and at) each other.

Munchkin might work...except they feel they are very deep role-players. If I ever even suggested they aren't role-playing much, they'd be very offended. And to be fair they do role-play some. But it is hard to get a bead on the guy (K) who never talks IC, though K often refers to how his character has no motivation for something (but it is hard to tell what does motivate them since they are effectively a Mime that doesn't mime). Two of the other players, L and R tend to talk in character some. Though R has the amusing habit of talking like whomever he is talking to. But we never get drawn into just IC talk like my old group did, and telling characters from players is generally really difficult.

Generally they aren't big knowing the rules really well. How much varies, but I tend to be the most familiar with the rules (though my knowledge isn't perfect). Possibly this is part of the reason they get frustrated by problems, since they aren't very familiar with in-game tools to deal with them. And they don't always like it when you point out something they could try (such as how Gather Information works or whatever). I think to an extent they don't like rules for social situations, but they aren't all that great at handling social problems without rules.

In any case, if a RP-lite game as proposed, they'd object to it, I am pretty sure.

The problem I see with the evil suggestion is that it is just another way of forcing morality and roleplaying onto the party...which is clearly not what they want. Its kind of like saying "Look at these actions I am taking! Now can you see how they are morally wrong?" From what it sounds like these players want to think about themselves as the the good guys and totally avoid all these ethical questions.

OP, I do sympathize...my style of play if far more in line with yours. Also, if the cleric (Sarenrae, I am assuming?) is continually acting like that they probably should have lost their powers by now (I guess that Sarenrae forgiveness extends to her clerics). However, you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink. If that type of game isn't fun for them, you are not going to be able to convince them to change the way they play.

Its a tough situation, but here are some possible options:
-Have you really sat down and talked with your gaming group? I don't mean made offhand complaints and suggestions during the game...but really have a conversation about everyone's playstyle. It may be a longshot, but perhaps there is compromise that can be made.
-Are there any other gaming groups in the area? These people are clearly your friends and by all means don't cut them out of your life...but perhaps gaming with them isn't working out. Alternatively, if you can fit two games into your life, playing murderhobo with them might not feel so bad when you have another gaming outlet to play a more serious game.
-Are you still in touch with your college gaming friends? Perhaps are still interested in playing. Tools like Roll20 and Skype can do a lot to bridge the distance.

Yeah, it was a Cleric of Sarenrae. But the DM was understandably hesitant about removing powers. If only because only me and him would have actually understood why it happened. It would have seemed like BS to everyone else. Heck, they think how he handles monsters is BS, because wolves might use pack tactics and that doesn't seem to make sense to them. Though, they tend not to notice when enemies use bad tactics. But that's a minor issue (though how they think all enemies are like Seal Team 6 is a bit sad and a bit funny).

We have had conversations about it. In fact, the only reason we ever sat down and talked about playstyles is because of me. In part they didn't even buy into the idea that there could be incompatible playstyles. And they did says that complex situations are fine, as long as I am ok with them occasionally "solving" them by just killing whatever is involved. But in practice this seems to be pretty much always killing whatever is involved. I don't really see how hashing it out again is going to get anywhere though. We did talk about it quite a lot. I talked to one of the players who temporarily left a couple months back about how I feel right now. He seemed to act like what I was saying was some sort of revelation and I had never said it before (which I had and we have email exchanges on it) -- though he tends to not remember things that don't fit into his worldview.

My college gaming friends...heh...well, that's a whole 'nother story. Primarily it was my best friend and his girlfriend of 6 years. They had a couple who were friends with them for 5+ years move in with them. My best friend then indicated his interested in the other guy's girl (in private, but it later got out). Everything went to hell. I tried to support the wronged parties and convince my friend that he really screwed up. At first he acknowledged that a bit, then went into a whole "I have to live in the moment and thinking about the past is wrong". Eventually, I decided I really couldn't be friends with someone that would betray people so close to him like that and express no remorse or admit there were better ways to handle it. Anyhow, they mostly don't live locally anymore.

But, I live in Columbus, Ohio, so I am sure there are other gaming groups in the area. I do think I should at least take a break for a while from gaming with my current group. Let them see if they can figure out how to get things working if I am not in the picture.

Edit: I just wrote an email to my group saying I'll be sitting out at least the next campaign. That leaves options if I change my mind, but also gives them a chance to work things out without me in the picture.

[Delwugor]

I have a simple guide for when to leave a group or game that I have problems with. While driving there I ask myself whether I'm having a good time and do I want to be there.
Twice the answer has been no and I've turned around and went home, later telling the group that it wasn't working for me.
Recently though, the answer was yes and I continued on to the game. The problem did occur but I had realized it was not as important as the game, so I had a great time and continue to do so.

[Jornophelanthas]

It looks like Drachasor made a well-argued decision about the current issue. I hope that it proves to be the right one.

Consider talking to the DM, who appears to be very much on the same page as you with regards to moral decisions during roleplay (but who is willing/able to accommodate their roleplaying style to a far greater extent than you are). I strongly suspect he will understand your position and be sympathetic.

In case you are looking for other avenues of roleplaying during your hiatus, I also suggest contacting the DM about this. The two of you share a similar roleplaying style, and this could be the start of a new campaign that better suits (both?) your tastes. All it needs would be one or two new players. And you might even consider DM-ing yourself.

Edit: I believe you have a rotating DM system in place. To be more specific, I am referring both to your brother who "most easily reaches a compromise in his campaigns", and the DM who was understandably hesitant to punish the Sarenrae cleric. (I suspect they are the same.)

(And indeed, forget about the evil character suggestion. If it is not for you, it is not for you.)

[veti]

In any case, if a RP-lite game as proposed, they'd object to it, I am pretty sure.

The great thing about Munchkin is, it's not an RP game at all, lite or otherwise. It's very obviously doing something different for a session "because I thought we could all do with a break".

If you can persuade the next DM to take a bit longer setting up his campaign, then "the new campaign isn't ready yet" seems to me like an unanswerable excuse to do something different that requires zero prep for a week.

But don't mind me, I'm just trying to make sure you know what it is I'm suggesting. Have you ever played 'Munchkin'? If so, then you do and I won't bother you any more, but if not, I'd urge you to take a look.

[Gamgee]

I have a practical way of handling those people. I run my game as simulations. Enemies are smart and intelligent, and there are ethical consequences. If the players get so frustrated that they move on then they were unworthy of playing in my games. I run them as a challenge on so many levels combat is but one of them. There are more than a few people who have not meshed well with that playstyle and have left.

Usually though a crash course in 90% of their characters dying makes most people reform and rethink their views and ideas. I've had players in my games go on out in other games and complain how easy it is. I've got a very Dark Souls mentality. Difficult but fair, and if you can't handle that then you can go. This also concerns morals as much as it can as well. Ultimately you will adapt and if you don't there are very real consequences to that as there would be in real life.

Your acquaintances who had shot the security personnel? Would have been arrested, and if they did not have patience for a trial retired as characters. If their next characters got removed quickly so be it. I am unyielding and unwilling to change, but fair. I give them plenty of opportunities to change their ways. If they had not? And left in a big huff? Oh well. There is always the next game and more players. I realize when its close friends this can be a lot harder, and I've had to do it to them too. However at least they realize I'm fair and what they are getting into. Then again I can be a strange man at the best of times. At least compared to most people.

Edit
Good to see you solve your problem so swiftly Drachasor. Sad as it might be this is a chance for growth and learning if you find a new group. Hope you find a group more in line with what you want. Sometimes conflict can be the greatest teacher.... in moderation.

[INDYSTAR188]

The great thing about Munchkin is, it's not an RP game at all, lite or otherwise. It's very obviously doing something different for a session "because I thought we could all do with a break".

If you can persuade the next DM to take a bit longer setting up his campaign, then "the new campaign isn't ready yet" seems to me like an unanswerable excuse to do something different that requires zero prep for a week.

But don't mind me, I'm just trying to make sure you know what it is I'm suggesting. Have you ever played 'Munchkin'? If so, then you do and I won't bother you any more, but if not, I'd urge you to take a look.

Munchkin is a lot of crazy fun. It says right on the box: Kill the Monsters - Steal the Treasure - Stab Your Buddy. I agree, this is a nice change of pace and is a pretty convenient source of entertainment.

[Airk]

I have a practical way of handling those people. I run my game as simulations. Enemies are smart and intelligent, and there are ethical consequences. If the players get so frustrated that they move on then they were unworthy of playing in my games. I run them as a challenge on so many levels combat is but one of them. There are more than a few people who have not meshed well with that playstyle and have left.

Usually though a crash course in 90% of their characters dying makes most people reform and rethink their views and ideas. I've had players in my games go on out in other games and complain how easy it is. I've got a very Dark Souls mentality. Difficult but fair, and if you can't handle that then you can go. This also concerns morals as much as it can as well. Ultimately you will adapt and if you don't there are very real consequences to that as there would be in real life.

Your acquaintances who had shot the security personnel? Would have been arrested, and if they did not have patience for a trial retired as characters. If their next characters got removed quickly so be it. I am unyielding and unwilling to change, but fair. I give them plenty of opportunities to change their ways. If they had not? And left in a big huff? Oh well. There is always the next game and more players. I realize when its close friends this can be a lot harder, and I've had to do it to them too. However at least they realize I'm fair and what they are getting into. Then again I can be a strange man at the best of times. At least compared to most people.

That's nice. You could have made this a lot shorter and just said "I wouldn't play with this group" because that's clearly what your designs amount to in this case.

[Gamgee]

That's nice. You could have made this a lot shorter and just said "I wouldn't play with this group" because that's clearly what your designs amount to in this case.

I could have, but sometimes exploring in more detail the ramifications of why one does things is more interesting from a discussion point. Just like you could have simply told me to shut up and talk less. I won't listen, but hey. Would have been better to just take your own advice on this one. It's pretty funny you tell me I was long winded, and then your guilty of the same thing. Hahaha. That was a good chuckle.

You then go on to completely misinterpret me. I never said I wouldn't attempt to play with them, but how long it would last? At the end of the day sometimes people are just so different your better off finding a new group than smashing heads with people who might not even like you anymore. Who knows though I've been wrong in the past about this kind of stuff and been surprised, on occasion.